Connect with us

NEC Errors

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by Paul Hovnanian P.E., Apr 6, 2005.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. What is the proper procedure for reporting (possible) errors in the 2005
    NEC?
    After applying the Errata issued December 24, 2004 I'm still finding
    some discrepancies.

    I scanned through the NFPA web site and didn't find a 'bug report' page.
     
  2. John Ray

    John Ray Guest

    AFAIK....
    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/commentform.pdf

    John
     
  3. References to nonexistent paragraphs for one thing.
     
  4. I have found about 35 errors in the NFPA/IAEI Analysis of Changes to the
    2005 NEC book. Some of them are fairly significant. I will putting these
    up at my site electrician.com in the near future.
     
  5. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I feel sorry for the poor bastards who are taking the journeyman's test. 5 guys in my company have
    taken the test upwards of 8 times and still not passed.



    I have found about 35 errors in the NFPA/IAEI Analysis of Changes to the
    2005 NEC book. Some of them are fairly significant. I will putting these
    up at my site electrician.com in the near future.
     
  6. Post here when your stuff is up and I'll check what I have against your
    list.
     
  7. Actually, you'd think that someone preparing a document like this would
    use tools that would eliminate this kind of error in the first place.

    They probably just use MS Word.
     
  8. sandman

    sandman Guest


    seems pretty obvious to me
    411.2 tells the defination.
    411.6 is the install requirements.
     
  9. daestrom

    daestrom Guest

    :) Probably. But current versions of MS Word *do* provide for
    automatically renumbering paragraphs and updating references. It's just a
    pain to use. I've seen a lot of 'administrative assistants' that still
    don't know how to create simple tables and such. They insist on hitting the
    'spacebar' until things line up, no matter the font/tab-settings/etc...

    You have to be smarter than the program you're using ;-)

    daestrom
     
  10. Right. I'd go with the 411.6 limit (it says 'shall').

    411.2 is inconsistent, but all it does is define the system as '25
    amperes maximum'. A system that complies with 411.6 still fits this
    definition. Even if it is confusing.


    --
    Paul Hovnanian mailto:p
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's easier said than done.
    .... and if you don't believe it, try proving that it's easier done than
    said, and you'll see that it's easier said that `it's easier done than
    said' than it is done, which really proves that it's easier said than
    done.
     
  11. Guest

    There is no inconsistency. You need to read it more carefully.
    One is the *branch* circuit (411.6) which must be no more than 20 amps.
    The definition in 411.2 states
    "...with one or more *secondary* circuits, each limited
    to 25 amperes maximum, ..."
    (emphasis mine)

    Ed
     
  12. Guest

    Please. Try to think about the sections you mentioned.
    Try to read them carefully and apply them to what they
    "talk" about.
    411.2 does not contain the term "secondary system".
    It clearly tells you that *secondary circuits* must be
    limited to 25 amps, maximum. Note that it uses the
    term "one or more" and refers to circuitS (plural)
    Note too that "limited" does not necessarily mean
    that a circuit breaker must be the limiting means.

    411.6 refers to *a* branch circuit. *One*

    There's a breaker in your service panel and
    conductors (the branch circuit referred to in 411.6)
    from the panel to an outlet for the lighting system.
    That breaker cannot exceed 20 amps. The isolated
    supply can have more than one secondary, but each
    secondary must be limited to no more than 25 amps.

    You do this (see below) - post a change to the premise under
    discussion - all the time. It just confuses things. Suggestion:
    Stick to the premise at hand. Until and unless you understand
    the original issue, don't confuse things by bringing in more
    issues. If you want to pursue another issue, move it to another
    thread to eliminate confusion.

    Ed
     
  13. Guest

    Maybe this will work if I swear, for emphasis.
    Nah. I'll just use the asterics, capitals and put it on
    a separate line. Quoting 411.2
    "A lighting system consisting of an isolating power supply
    operating at 30 volts (42.4 volts peak) or less, under any
    load condition, with one or more secondary circuits,
    *EACH*
    limited to 25 amperes maximum, supplying lighting fixtures
    and associated equipment identified for the use."

    Do you understand the word "each" ?
    Did you read the section carefully and try to
    understand it as I asked you to do?
    You need a dictionary, and a course in english - and you
    shouldn't get anywhere near wiring if you don't understand
    that.
    Yes it does, but the material I quoted and you snipped was
    your attempt to bring up a different issue. And you've done
    it again (below). Keep it to article 411. Try using a dictionary.

    Ed
     
  14. Guest

    I understand that you don't get it, and I apologize for my inability to
    make it clear
    to you. Bye.

    Ed
     
  15. John Ray

    John Ray Guest

    Ed has it right. Try a real world example...

    Lets say we have one of those 'Nightscaping' yard light transformers. You
    can feed it through a maximum 20 amp circuit.(411.6)

    The transformer has 3 'legs' on the secondary winding each protected by an
    edison base fuse, which can be 25 amps maximum. (411.2)

    John
     
  16. John Ray

    John Ray Guest

    Perhaps Ed got a bit worked up, but we who post in Usenet must always
    remember that for every layman who posts a question, there are countless
    lurkers that may attempt to apply what they read. There's (to me anyway) a
    responsibility that comes with that. Ed obviously takes responsibility for
    accuracy in the discussions here, and he felt the need to clear things up.

    That being said, you can get into alot of trouble trying to interpret
    individual passages; everything relates. Notice that 411.5b refers
    'secondary circuit' being isolated from the 'branch circuit'. Once you read
    the whole article, the terminology is very clear. 'Separately derived
    system' doesn't apply here.

    It's entertaining in a perverse way to find holes in the code, but I don't
    believe anyone ever intended it to be a book for Joe Homeowner to read at
    the library so he can wire stuff up. I'm not saying this applies to you,
    just that the NEC should be read with some degree of precognition, which
    makes it an easier read.

    John
     
  17. John Ray

    John Ray Guest

    Maybe. This thread certainly has run off a bit, but like I said above,
    people are reading this, And if they ARE going to try and apply it
    somewhere, they should at least get the whole picture. There was a bit of
    doubt in the thread regarding current limiting.
    I'm saying its irrelevant to the argument. The article states that I CAN use
    up to a 20A branch ckt. to feed the transformer, which CAN, in turn, employ
    25A ckts. on the secondary. The fact that we have isolation doesn't
    introduce an opportunity for interpretation here.
    I agree regarding the how-to books, but not for having 2 codes. For one, it
    would be exploited by jackass contractors. Many jurisdictions offer a
    residential-only license, but they still require proof of experience as they
    well should. There's a reason for licensing and all the liability insurance
    we have to carry. Very minor mistakes can yield catastrophic results in
    time. Maybe you could allow non-professional homeowners to do their own work
    if they employed a licensed consultant or something of the like....maybe.
    Some might argue that it IS their property, but electrical failures can
    easily affect neighboring property.

    John

    Let's put this one to bed.
     
  18. John Ray

    John Ray Guest

    Jesus, man!
    I now see that it is you who has pushed this thread around in a circle. You
    seem to have a large chip on your shoulder. I never doubted that you are
    intelligent, but you seemed unclear on a code article that is pretty clear
    to most who would actually deal with it. I simply tried to explain it
    another way, and now you've resorted to picking apart my grammar!? FWIW I
    did say circuit(s)...sorry if the abbreviation made that unclear for you.
    It's really rediculous how far you've pushed this simple bit of code. Post a
    reply if you wish ( I'm SURE you will ). I will post no further on this.

    John

    ok...everyone all together now....

    "PHIL'S A SMART GUY!"

    feel better?
     
  19. Brian

    Brian Guest

    So does this group have a EEA(Electrical Engineers Anonymous)? I am thinking about quitting but
    everyone I work with says quitting doesn't get the job done.



    Jesus, man!
    I now see that it is you who has pushed this thread around in a circle. You
    seem to have a large chip on your shoulder. I never doubted that you are
    intelligent, but you seemed unclear on a code article that is pretty clear
    to most who would actually deal with it. I simply tried to explain it
    another way, and now you've resorted to picking apart my grammar!? FWIW I
    did say circuit(s)...sorry if the abbreviation made that unclear for you.
    It's really rediculous how far you've pushed this simple bit of code. Post a
    reply if you wish ( I'm SURE you will ). I will post no further on this.

    John

    ok...everyone all together now....

    "PHIL'S A SMART GUY!"

    feel better?
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-